PURPOSE: This study investigates the clinical and activity-based outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus multiligamentous knee reconstruction (MLKR) following a pivoting sports injury. METHODS: Fifty MLKR patients were included, of which 20 (40%) were injured during pivoting sports. A further 50 patients undergoing ACLR following an injury during pivoting sports were consecutively recruited for comparison. Patients were assessed before the surgery and at 6-, 12- and 24 months with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, Tegner activity scale (TAS) and anterior cruciate ligament return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) score. Knee movement, the single (SHD) and triple (THD) hop tests for distance, and peak isokinetic knee extensor and flexor strength were assessed, with Limb Symmetry Indices (LSIs) calculated. Outcomes were compared across groups: (1) ACLR (n = 50), (2) MLKR (n = 50) and (3) MLKR due to pivoting sport injury (n = 20). RESULTS: IKDC, TAS and ACL-RSI scores remained lower (p <
0.05) in the full MLKR versus ACLR cohort at all timepoints. Comparing the ACLR and MLKR cohort that had injuries specifically during pivoting sports, the IKDC (p <
0.001) and TAS (p = 0.009) were higher in the ACLR group at 6 months, and the ACL-RSI was higher at 6 (p <
0.001) and 12 (p = 0.007) months, there were no further differences. Hop and knee extensor strength LSIs were lower (p <
0.05) in the full MLKR (versus ACLR) cohort at all timepoints (apart from the 24-month SHD LSI). However, the ACLR group only demonstrated greater LSIs than the pivoting sport MLKR for the SHD at 6 months (p <
0.001), and knee extensor strength at 6 (p <
0.001) and 12 (p <
0.001) months. CONCLUSIONS: While the recovery of patients undergoing MLKR due to a pivoting sports injury is delayed compared with their ACLR counterparts, the clinical outcome and activity profile are similar by 24 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.